32 CHAPTER 2|THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FOUNDING
and therefore less able to dominate. This insight provides the basis for modern
pluralism, a political theory that makes the same argument about the cross-
cutting interests of groups today.
The precise contours of Madison’s solution still had to be hammered out at the
Constitutional Convention, but the general principle pleased both the Antifeder-
alists and the Federalists. State governments would maintain some autonomy,
but the national government would become stronger than it had been under the
Articles. The issue was how to strike an appropriate balance: none of the framers
favored a pure populist majoritarian democracy, and few wanted to protect minor-
ity rights to the extent that the Articles had.Small States versus Large States
The question of the appropriate balance came to a head in a debate between small
states and large states over representation in the national legislature. Under the
Articles every state had a single vote, but this did not seem fair to large states.
They were pushing for representation based on population. This proposal, along
with other proposals to strengthen the national government, constituted the
Virginia Plan. The small states countered with the New Jersey Plan, which
proposed maintaining equal representation for every state. Rhode Island, the
smallest state, was so concerned about small-state power that it boycotted the con-
vention. Tensions were running high; this issue appeared to have all the elements
of a deal breaker, and there seemed to be no way to break the impasse.
Just as it appeared that the convention might grind to a halt, Connecticut pro-
posed what became known as the Great Compromise, or the Connecticut Com-
promise. The plan suggested establishing a Congress with two houses: a Senate
with two senators from each state, and a House of Representatives with each
state’s number of representatives being based on its population. That system is
still in place today.Legislative Power versus Executive Power
An equally diffi cult challenge was how to divide power at the national level. Here
the central issues revolved around the executive—the president. How much power
should the president have relative to the legislative branch? (The courts also
fi gured into the discussions, but they were less central.) And how would the presi-
dent be elected? One of the main problems was that the convention delegates did
not have any positive role models for the executive.LIMITING PRESIDENTIAL POWER
The delegates knew what they did not want: the king of England and his colonial
governors were viewed as tramplers of liberty. Many delegates rejected outright
the idea of a single executive because they believed it was impossible to have
an executive who would not be oppressive. For this reason Edmund Randolph
proposed a three-person executive. In contrast, the Virginia Plan envisioned a
single executive who would share some legislative power with federal judges in a
Council of Revision with the power to veto legislation passed by Congress (however,pluralism The idea that having
a variety of parties and interests
within a government will strengthen
the system, ensuring that no group
possesses total control.
Virginia Plan A plan proposed
by the larger states during the
Constitutional Convention that
based representation in the national
legislature on population. The plan
also included a variety of other
proposals to strengthen the national
government.
New Jersey Plan In response to
the Virginia Plan, smaller states at
the Constitutional Convention pro-
posed that each state should receive
equal representation in the national
legislature, regardless
of size.
Great Compromise A compro-
mise between the large and small
states, proposed by Connecticut,
in which Congress would have two
houses: a Senate with two legisla-
tors per state and a House of Rep-
resentatives in which each state’s
representation would be based on
population (also known as the Con-
necticut Compromise).